FILM REVIEWS: American Hustle

Thank God for movies like American Hustle, because if it weren’t for them, I wouldn’t bother seeing movies in theaters anymore. Despite being somewhat overrated, this is a well-oiled machine of a movie that pushes along at a strong pace, building and becoming more interesting as characters and subplots are piled on. I think that in a way, this film is a toned-down version of Pulp Fiction-- Although it’s certainly not as good, it boasts all the aspects of a gangster/drama/comedy classic. It’s funny when it wants to be, ironic whenever it feels like it, but it also sets aside time for jaw-droppingly great performances and extremely dramatic moments. Also, it boasts an all-star cast that left me blown away. This is one of the best films of the year.

American Hustle is directed by David O. Russell, who in the past has given us the criminally underrated film Three Kings and the criminally overrated film Silver Linings Playbook. Say what you will about him, but he is one of the few directors who can actually make visuals in a drama amazing. Most people consider visuals in movies nowadays to be things like CGI and explosions, but action and sci-fi landscapes aren’t necessary to create memorable visuals. Russell focuses mostly on camera angles and set design, and puts an incredible amount of effort into re-creating the era. The costumes are expertly crafted, and the scene in which Christian Bale pieces together his hair is absolutely perfect.

Unlike other movies (fuck you, The Butler), American Hustle doesn’t pretend to be even remotely accurate about its story, prefacing the movie with the title card “SOME OF THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED.” It’s a work of genius that sets the tone for a vibrantly surreal movie that only gets more enjoyable the further it travels down the rabbit hole. Bale stars as an expert con artist, who with the assistance of Amy Adams cons hundreds of not-so-well-off guys who need loans. Bale’s operation is sniffed out by Bradley Cooper, a hothead federal agent who seems to always take things too far. Originally, these two roles were going to be reversed, with Cooper as the con artist and Bale as the fed. But that would never have worked-- Cooper’s youthful exuberance completely makes his character, and Bale delivers one of his best performances ever as the withdrawn con man. These are two of the year’s best performances, and practically carry the movie entirely just by the levity of their actions.

In order to avoid jail time, Bale and Adams agree to help Cooper out in a massive bust of corrupt politicians. One of these politicians is Mayor Carmine Polito, who is played by Jeremy Renner, one of the most underrated actors of our generation. He brings his innate likability to the character, and creates a sympathetic person who clearly wants nothing more than to do what is best for his constituents. But the real draw in this film is Jennifer Lawrence, who plays Bale’s wife. She is both magnetic and repulsive at once-- her character is probably the most intense I’ve seen this year. Although on the surface she is nothing more than a manipulative harpy, she soon reveals deep-seated emotional problems, a fear of change, and seriously latent stupidity. This is what makes her so dangerous: She is an unstable, attractive idiot. I don’t know whether to be entertained by her or fear her with every fiber of my being.

All of these performances are spectacular, but the film is lacking somewhat when it comes to heart. It flips through several great and memorable characters, from Michael Pena as a fake Arab sheik to Robert De Niro in a cameo as the ultimate tough-guy mobster, but it never seems to make us feel attached to the characters. Some backstory is given to Bale and Adams, but I never really bought their relationship, and this story is thrown in at the beginning, where the audience is yelling “JUST GET TO THE HUSTLE ALREADY!” It certainly gets better as it moves along, but I never shook the feeling that I was watching Pulp Fiction Lite. It’s another movie about gangsters and colorful characters, but none of them have the authenticity and likability of the characters in other gangster classics. There weren’t many quotable quotes, the dialogue lacked passion, and there was a lot of technical mumbo-jumbo about the money transfers and suchlike. Not a moment of small talk goes by, and that purveys the thought that these characters aren’t really characters-- They’re just people filling roles.

Final Score for American Hustle: 7/10 stars. A very well-done film that stumbles occasionally, this movie is extremely watchable but not always enjoyable. It’s at its best when it tries to be funny, because when it’s funny it’s HILARIOUS. Louie CK makes a welcome appearance as Bradley Cooper’s oft-abused boss, and he brings his funniest stuff to the table. The sheer ludicrousness of this movie is laughable, and I mean that in a good way. It’s a lot of fun, so who cares if there are moments that don’t ring as true as others?

Wait, there’s a scene where Jennifer Lawrence kisses Amy Adams.

On the lips.

Fuck it, 8/10.

FILM REVIEWS: The Way Way Back

After seeing plenty of coming-of-age stories, I was afraid that the genre would get a tad tedious. I was wrong. It seems that no matter how many times the same themes are repeated in these movies, the directors always find something new to bring to the table. The Way Way Back is one of the best films of the year, and is one of the few films that can legitimately bill itself as "You'll laugh, you'll cry." It's quite an experience.

The Way Way Back is the story of Duncan, a 14-year-old kid with a distant mother who has an abusively mean boyfriend (played by Steve Carell). The opening scene is incredible and hard to watch-- and it really sets the tone for the rest of the film. Carell asks him to rate himself on a scale of one to ten. When he persists, Duncan gives in and says "Six." Carell responds with the most crushing line in comedy history: "I think you're a three."

I've always been a big fan of Steve Carell (even when he made Dan in Real Life), but I never expected a performance like this from him. He's a very likable person, yet he plays an incredibly detestable character. I don't know what the directors saw in him that made them choose him for the role, but they were clearly right, as he plays the part perfectly. Meanwhile, Allison Janey is introduced as a drunk, nutty neighbor, which adds some welcome lightness to the proceedings. I've only seen her as CJ Craig in The West Wing, so it was nice to see her go from being a cut-and-dried press secretary to a tipsy divorcee cutting loose.

But the best performance comes from one of my favorite actors, Sam Rockwell. If he hadn't already solidified his standing as a great actor with Moon or Galaxy Quest, he does so with this. He plays the King of the Water Park in the beach community where Duncan is on vacation, and after he sees something in Duncan, he hires him as a water park employee. He is truly the kind of person everyone should aspire to be. Carefree, hilarious, fast-talking, and just fun to be around, he embodies everything that someone taking care of a kid should be. He is the exact opposite of Carell, giving the movie an almost zenlike yin-and-yang feel to it. It perfectly balances the painfully honest moments of Duncan's home life with his hysterical proceedings at the water park. It's an incredible feat.

The dialogue crackles with intensity as well, Rockwell's specifically. I find it hard to believe that anyone is as good at talking to kids as his character is, but it's certainly fun to watch. He makes up stories off the top of his head and spins ridiculous anecdotes like it comes naturally to him. He's an incredibly fun character to watch, and I can only imagine how fun he was to play.

However, upon a revisitation recently, I realized why this movie isn't that special-- it's lightweight. Not much of importance happens in it, and although it's intermittently spectacular, Rockwell and Carell are the best parts (and arguably the only good parts). In a perfect world, this would pick up a Best Supporting Actor nom for Rockwell, but given the Academy's bias against comedies, I doubt it will even be able to do that, and it will be forever confined to the dustbin of coming-of-age movies. I don't often lower my score for a movie after rewatching it, but at the end of the day, this isn't anything we haven't seen before. And I want to keep up my ridiculously high standards this year in order to have a good awards ceremony, so...

Final Score for The Way Way Back: 7/10 stars. It's a great film, but unfortunately, the payoff is somewhat unsatisfying. I wanted Rockwell and Carell to have a showdown of some kind, but really, that's not in the spirit of the movie. If Rockwell had done anything to Carell, he would have been fighting Duncan's battle for him, and that's not what he needed. He needed a moral guide, not someone to step in for him. Really, it's a charming and fun summer movie that I can't imagine anyone not liking. Definitely worth two hours of your time.

FILM REVIEWS: The Spectacular Now

When a movie has a word in its title such as “Spectacular,” one expects it to live up to the bar set by that name. And although The Spectacular Now is a perfectly serviceable coming-of-age story, there’s nothing about it that makes it stand out from the pack. The film is well-acted, but in the places where it should soar, it just feels hopelessly generic. I really liked all of the characters in this movie, and the dialogue was often very well-written, but it never really cohered into a narrative that I cared about. Perhaps it’s because I’ve been looking forward to seeing this film for so long, but it was a tremendous letdown.

The Spectacular Now is the typical coming-of-age story, told from the perspective of Generic Party Animal Product of a Split Household Teenager Dealing With Teenage Problems (Miles Teller). His character, Sutter Keely, has trouble with geometry, doesn’t know his real father, has writer’s block trying to write a college admission assignment, and just got dumped by his girlfriend. Wow, could they have thrown any more things in there? I hate characters like this, where the director and writers try to come up with a typical teenager, but end up with a character whom real teenagers will simply laugh at and dismiss as a generic stereotype. And rightly so. Is it really too much to ask for some effort to be put into these creations? I’m not asking for the next Donnie Darko here (because God knows that’s pretty much impossible), but at least give us a fighting chance to like this character. Ugh.

Fortunately, he is balanced out by his co-star (Shailene Woodley), who is as far from generic as it gets. Her character, the nerdy and withdrawn girl who Sutter ends up falling for, actually feels real and her acting brings her to life. She actually reminded me of someone I know in real life, which is the sign of a realistic character. And when her character interacts with Sutter, they have legitimate screen chemistry that really starts to tie the film together. However, as the movie wears on, their story becomes more and more hamstrung and we start to lose interest. Minor things are thrown in one at a time, then (spoiler alert) WHAM! She gets hit by a car. Ten minutes later, she’s basically out of the movie, even though (spoiler alert again) she lives.

A lot of the problems with this movie could have been fixed if there was some central plot point tying all these things together, but all it really amounted to was Sutter trying to write his college application. I’m really disappointed by how weak the narrative was, because there were scenes-- such as the aforementioned car accident-- that left me in jaw-dropped, stunned silence. But even in gut-wrenching scenes like this, everything feels manipulative, shallow, and calculated. Like someone said “Hey, what’s another shitty thing we can throw in here to make people feel bad? Oh, I know! Car accidents!” Sutter also meets his deadbeat dad at one point, and although Kyle Chandler gives it his all, he never evolves his character past the typical Emotionally Unavailable Father With a Drinking Problem. Not very spectacular.

It really hurts me to say some of these things about this movie, because even though it’s often hollow and bland, a lot of it rings true. The main character doesn’t know what to do with his life, and he doesn’t care, a trait that all too many people my age have these days. I certainly subscribe to his ethos of “Living in the Now,” though, which gains the film a few points-- It’s always good when you agree with the fundamental core message of a movie. But it requires more, and this movie just doesn’t have it. I’m actually done with indie comedy/drama stuff like this now, because even the good movies of this genre leave people unsatisfied. The people who gave us The Spectacular Now also gave us 500 Days of Summer, one of the most overrated and disappointing movies ever. People seem to have run out of ways to tell romance and coming-of-age stories, so now whenever there’s the slightest alteration in the formula, the movie is hailed as “bravely original.”

Final Score for The Spectacular Now: 5/10 stars. Again, I give out this score to this movie with a heavy heart, because I really wanted to like it. But at the end of the day, it adds up to considerably less than the sum of its often scintillating parts, to the point where even a Bob Odenkirk cameo can’t save it. It’s such a bland and dulled-down little movie, and I can’t possibly recommend it to anyone. This seems like the kind of movie adults would watch to try and understand their kids. But until we see a coming-of-age movie actually written by teenagers, there won’t be anything very authentic in the genre.

FILM REVIEWS: Inside Llewyn Davis

At this point in their careers, the Coen brothers have reached essentially the highest level of acclaim possible. They’ve made cult classics, award-winning dramas, and even a Best Picture winner. Not one, not two, but FOUR of their films-- The Big Lebowski, Fargo, O Brother Where Art Thou, and Raising Arizona-- are on my Top 100 Films list. Unfortunately, their success comes with some detraction. Many mainstream filmgoers nowadays see their movies as pretentious Oscar bait. And it’s understandable. After all, the main character in their new film, Inside Llewyn Davis, is played by a guy named Oscar Isaac. And it also has that bleak cinematography, solemn sense of humor, and enchanting musical score that some people balk at. I admit that movies like this are not for everyone, and it’s fine if you find it too slow or overdramatic. But for the serious filmgoer, Inside Llewyn Davis should not be missed.

Isaac, previously only known for minor roles in films like Drive and The Bourne Legacy, is absolutely electric as the title character, a folk singer/hobo who gets progressively worse off through the course of the movie. He’s a pathetic character, sure, but the audience never gets the feeling that the suffering is only being piled on for effect. When bad things happen to him, it’s always for a reason, and in this case that reason is to drive the plot (thin as it may be). There’s no real narrative that ties this movie together, and all it really is is an assemblage of the random events that happen to this guy in the span of roughly a week. Although it is sometimes disjointed, the charisma of the cast makes it work, and the transitions between scenes is practically seamless.

As always, the Coens bring some of the best music of the year to the table with this film, which isn’t surprising-- Not only is this movie all about music, but they’ve also given us great soundtracks in O Brother and The Big Lebowski. Inside Llewyn Davis does not disappoint at all here, and the music is treated with reverence and respect. Isaac is actually a very good singer, and from what I could see, he was actually playing the guitar as well. The music, and the venues in which it was played, felt very authentic and spot-on for the time. No songs are cut off halfway through, and they are never played in snippets. And when performers aren’t actually playing, there is rarely a soundtrack, giving the film a very realistic aura.

The cinematography, another thing the Coens are consistently spectacular with, is also stunning. There are great landscape shots during a psychedelic road trip sequence that totally convey the feeling of despondency to the audience. The sets are also awesome and very reminiscent of the time. The Gaslight Cafe in particular is certain to conjure up some memories for older baby boomers. The camera moves with sweeping and alluring gestures, giving the film a far more grandiose feel than its simple subject matter might suggest. In short, everything about the audio and the visual of this movie is utterly spectacular, to the point that characters and plot (dare I say it) almost don’t matter. It sucks you into its own little world, and it’s quite the experience.

Some of the dialogue is questionable at the more serious moments, but every comedic moment is hilarious and darkly funny. John Goodman, who I guess has signed a blood oath to appear in every Coen brothers movie ever made, is electric as an obnoxious jazz enthusiast/heroin addict. He’s one of the few actors that can actually grip you by sleeping onscreen. And it shows-- By the end of his brief time in the movie, he’s accomplished more in the background than most actors do by chewing the furniture. But the amazing thing about this movie, and most Coen brothers movies in general, is that each of the minor characters could easily support their own movie. From Troy, the robotic soldier and performer, to Al Cody, a somewhat unsettling vocalist, this movie is crammed with the memorable characters that we’ve come to expect from the Coen’s films. They’re not just archetypes or stereotypes, they have depth and quirks. And that’s what makes them great.

At the end of the day, there is essentially no plot to this movie. It just juggles different random things that happen to Davis, from unexpectedly being entrusted with a cat to taking a road trip to Chicago. It’s absolute chaos, and that’s what makes it beautiful. The little subplots and subtle nuances range from dark and depressing to downright hilarious. Nearly everything in their movies seems to work all the time, but the best part of Coen Brothers movies is the fact that throwaway lines can become instantly quotable. “Everything you touch turns to shit! Like King Midas’s fuck-up brother!” Small talk and minor exchanges really make this movie... plus a little cameo by Bob Dylan before he made it big.

Final Score for Inside Llewyn Davis: 8/10 stars. Until I decide on my favorite movie of the year, this will stay an eight like the others, but I will graduate my Best Picture winner to a 9/10 when I’ve decided. This film is high in the running, I must say, and once again cements the Coens as the best modern directors. It actually might be their best film since O Brother, and that’s saying a lot. It’s got a likable lead, amazing music, and some of the best dialogue of the year. What’s not to like?

FILM REVIEWS: Don Jon

Although 2013 has given us some great surprises, it’s also given us some horrible disappointments. And I’m sorry to report that Don Jon falls quite comfortably into the latter category. The directorial debut from Joseph Gordon-Levitt, one of the best actors working today, this film pretends to be a play on the classic love story, but comes off as being nothing more than the classic love story... but with way, way, WAY more sex. Like, wow. If you plan on seeing this movie, I don’t recommend surround sound and 3-D glasses-- A good 1/3rd of it is fucking. I’m no prude (far from it), but when gratuitous violence or sex is only there for fun and doesn’t serve the plot, I have a problem. Much in the way that special effects often distract from a movie, these aspects (let’s call them ‘special defects’) distract heavily from Don Jon. At the end of the day, this movie is no more dramatic or well-acted than the porn that’s interspersed throughout it.

Levitt, who is an incredibly likable actor, somehow makes himself unlikable here with a character reprehensible in every way-- He is a hypocritical, porn-addicted, churchgoing, wife-beater wearing, road-rage greasy-haired no-good foul-mouthed asshole. And that’s sugarcoating it. His claim to fame is his ability to bang a new girl every night (Levitt must be a fan of How I Met Your Mother). The world that he creates for Jon is interesting, I suppose-- but it’s also sickeningly unrealistic. His character is painfully one-dimensional, and for some reason Levitt doesn’t bother exploring him any further than a skin-deep portrayal of a casual, laid-back guy who also happens to be an incredible dick. An important thing about liking a movie is forming an attachment to the main character, and within the first five minutes of Don Jon, I wanted to punch this fucker in the face.

Meanwhile, Scarlett Johansson, who is established from the get-go as the “perfect girl,” is an obnoxious and controlling harpy who basically neuters Jon and gets mad at him for looking at porn. Really? So now I am watching a movie about a relationship between two idiots, both of whom have an equal claim to being the stupidest person in the film. I didn’t care about a single line of dialogue they said to each other, and I CERTAINLY didn’t care where the story was going. Once Julianne Moore was thrown in, I was pretty much done. I think this movie was just an excuse for Levitt to grind on Scarlett Johansson.

And by the way-- Isn’t Julianne Moore, like... 20 years older than Levitt? I’m not saying that two people of different age groups can’t fall in love, but there should have at least been something in this movie that addressed that. He barely even brings it up. But much like the rest of the story, this plot point rests mostly on convenience and the audience’s willingness to buy into an increasingly pointless movie. I don’t know what the point of this thing was: At first I thought it was the story of Jon’s rehabilitation through Johansson’s character. But when I realized that her character was a sadistic bitch, I started wondering why I was even watching the thing in the first place. At the end of the movie, Jon has barely changed at all. He doesn’t watch porn, great. There’s a reason why guys don’t talk about stuff like this in real life: We don’t want to hear about it, and we certainly don’t want to watch a movie about it.

A lot of the camerawork is great, but it’s wasted with shots of people having sex almost constantly. I don’t recall seeing a movie in recent memory where the sex-to-time-passed ratio was so high. Sure, sex scenes are fine if they actually drive the plot forward, but why were there a pair of tits flashing across the screen while Levitt ate dinner? Maybe because it’s to show that the character is thinking about porn ALL THE TIME. But that makes me wonder about Levitt himself... sometimes this movie merely feels like a way for him to work out some weird sexual issues through filmmaking. I don’t know what the point of this movie was, really, but the more damning fact is that I don’t care either.

Final Score for Don Jon: 5/10 stars. Some of the acting was good, and I laughed at the dialogue on occasion, but really this is just an unremarkable and occasionally depraved movie that I am INCREDIBLY glad I didn’t see in a theater with my mom. That would have been soooo awkward. But honestly, I have the feeling that this movie only got good reviews because critics don’t want to discourage Levitt from filmmaking. And even though this thing was a massive dud, I agree. There are certainly good ideas here, and at least we know that he’s willing to push the boundaries of what’s considered “politically correct.” From an abstract standpoint, the movie is fine. But it is enormously lacking when it comes to substance.

HORROR WEEK: Tucker & Dale VS Evil

Most people (elitist cinema snobs) will write off Tucker & Dale as a typically stupid, loud, and gory comedy with not much to it. And to be honest, I felt like it was going to be just that. Fortunately, I was proven wrong, as this film is not just about mayhem and cheap laughs, but has a very sweet, pleasant, and (dare I say it) heartwarming pair as its central characters. It's original, funny, and genuinely a lovable film, reminiscent of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost's collaborations. If Shaun of the Dead redefined the zombie genre, this definitely did it for killer hillbillies.

Tucker & Dale VS Evil is the story of two harmless and simple country folk who, through a series of horrible accidents, are blamed by a group of college kids for the murder of their friends. After seeing one of the kids fall from a rock into a lake and hit her head, Tucker and Dale bring her back to their vacation cabin (which is basically a piece of crap, but it's a mansion to them). Dale falls for her and helps her get better, but in the meantime, the kids think that they abducted her. They then attempt to get her back, resulting in a series of gory and hilarious mishaps that send them flying into woodchippers, impaling themselves on sticks, and shooting themselves in the face.

This premise isn't exactly Oscar material, but it's certainly fun to watch, and I can imagine that it would be even more fun for fans of the horror genre. Telling a classic campfire story from the perspective of the 'villains' is the next logical step in making horror films, as they seem to have run out of any other ideas. Fortunately, Tucker & Dale VS Evil resists any attempt at taking itself seriously, resulting in great spoof material and a lot of over-the-top fun. Tyler Labine is great as Dale, the hapless yet kind goofball who falls head over heels for the college girl, and Alan Tudyk is great as Tucker. Then again, any movie with a former Firefly star will win bonus points from me. HE IS A LEAF ON THE WIND, MOTHERFUCKERS!

The movie does get a tad repetitive when it comes to the college kid's dialogue, but that's probably on purpose. "It's gonna be us or them!" kind of gets old after hearing it fifteen times, but as a riff on typically bland and generic horror movie dialogue, it works great. The writers have also upped the number of kids from the usual horror movie count of five to a grand total of eleven, resulting in plenty of spare characters to kill off in various fun and disgusting ways, including but not limited to: A weed whacker to the face, an exploding hillbilly house (spoilers! Oops), and chamomile tea. Don't ask... just watch it.

As is with all horror spoofs, it has its fair share of blood and guts gratuitously spilling everywhere, which will undoubtedly dissuade those who don't know what to expect. But for those of us who can appreciate a good horror/comedy, this is some enjoyably ridiculous and awesome shit. All the performances are admirable, the story is ludicrous yet compelling, and most importantly: The characters are well-developed. Even I, a stuck-up Bay Area resident who looks down his nose at hillbillies, was rooting 110% for these two to come out of everything okay. And THAT is a real cinematic feat.

Final Score for Tucker & Dale VS Evil: 7/10 stars. It doesn't try to be revolutionary, but it doesn't really have to be. It's just an awesome, hilarious, and epic story of two lovable rednecks and the preppy college girl who loved them (fuck, spoilers again). Turn off the uppity critic inside of you, relax back with your Pabst Blue Ribbon and overalls, and have yourself a good old-fashioned hick time.

HORROR WEEK: Scream

When directors take a stab (pun intended) at the horror genre, certain things should be expected of them. Firstly, a little creativity must be involved in the making of the movie, as horror fans have gotten tired of seeing the same old plot played out over and over again. Secondly, attention should be paid to the actors and dialogue, two things that are often neglected in the genre. And finally, the deaths need to be fun. It pains me to say that Wes Craven, the hit-and-miss director who has in the past given us A Nightmare on Elm Street and Deadly Friend, hits only one of those high points with the derivative and boring Scream.

Retelling the classic (or as I like to call it, recycled) story of the small community terrorized by a serial killer, Scream stars Neve Campbell as Sidney Prescott, a teenager whose friends begin dropping like flies after a mysterious killer surfaces in her town. After doing in Drew Barrymore in an iconic sequence, the killer (known as Ghostface) goes after Sidney. Now, here’s the thing: Rotten Tomatoes calls this movie a comedy, but there’s nothing funny in it. Sure, there are plenty of cute nods to horror fans, with references to Halloween and some of Craven’s own films, but there’s nothing about a girl being hung from a tree in front of her parents and disemboweled that one can really find humorous. Sorry-- but the movie just isn’t funny. In fact, I don’t even know if that was its intent.

What is probably Scream’s greatest asset soon becomes its worst affliction, as the in-jokes with slasher fans become so numerous and tongue-in-cheek, the casual viewer will want to slit their wrists. The horror genre has become so self-referencing and self-deprecating, it’s nearly impossible to take seriously. Even Scream, which some call a spoof, was in turn spoofed by the even less entertaining Scary Movie. It’s a never-ending cycle of stupidity, emphasized by franchise-blending movies such as Freddy VS Jason. It’s almost as if the genre knows how dumb it’s become, and has decided to accept its fate and live out the rest of its decidedly numbered days as an ever-spinning wheel of bad pop culture references. What a disappointment.

The characters in this film, as if it needed to be said, are one-dimensional and utterly uninvolving. Clearly, this was intentional, as nobody creates characters this badly without knowing what they’re doing (unless they’re Tommy Wiseau). But contrary to popular belief, when you make a crap movie and you KNOW that it’s crap, that doesn’t make it any more of an ‘art form.’ It’s still crap. Perhaps slightly more clean-cut, but crap nonetheless. The dialogue is atrocious, stilted, and annoying. And even the camerawork, which features a ‘spooky’ atmospheric that seems to bend the shape of the lens, is distracting and uninventive. This movie isn’t merely conventional-- it’s aggressively average.

And yes, horror fans, before you lose your minds over my lack of respect for this movie, I understand that it’s supposed to be self-referencing, unimaginative, and an affectionate look back on teen exploitation flicks of old. It holds such campy, bad horror in reverence. But here’s my problem-- Why couldn’t it revere the GOOD ones? Instead of reusing every single horror cliche in the book, why couldn’t Craven (a man who has proven himself time and time again to be very creative with the genre) think of something new to bring to the table other than this lackluster and banal exercise in dreary camp? How depressing.

But for all its flaws, Scream does deliver some good scares, some ridiculously over-the-top deaths (one even involves a garage door), and a damn good plot twist at the end. Although it’s not good by any means, the movie still was able to cohere a story that should keep less demanding horror fans watching. And although the dialogue is bad, the acting is worse, and the whole thing is one big amalgam of ideas stolen from other, better films... it’s still a far better movie than Friday the 13th.

Final Score for Scream: 3/10 stars. This is pretty lenient, but I suppose that I had a fun time with the film at the end of the day. If you’re willing to set aside more interesting horror movies for a while, turn off your brain, and watch something with absolutely no redeeming qualities other than pure and unbridled entertainment value, you won’t be disappointed. I just hope that this obnoxious exercise in pop crap is just a momentary detour from the genre. Because as the number of horror films I see for horror week gets higher... so do my standards.

FILM REVIEWS: Much Ado About Nothing

For those of you who still doubt Joss Whedon's godly power over every project he touches, look no further than Much Ado About Nothing. After once again proving himself with the enormous Avengers film, he set out to differentiate himself from other directors who normally would continue to stick to their formula of directing colorful action films with plenty of 'splosions. Not the case. Instead, he chose to shoot a positively brilliant adaptation of a classic Shakespeare play in black and white at his house.

For those of you who aren't Shakespeare buffs (which I suppose would be about everyone), Much Ado About Nothing is essentially the classic comedy from the most famous playwright of all time. It tracks a series of occasionally hopeful, occasionally doomed romances in a castle during an extended family get-together. Whedon has taken it and set it all in his own home, a daring endeavor, as actors tend to break shit. Anyway, the ins and outs of the family's relationships are too numerous and complicated to type out (which is why Rotten Tomatoes kept its summary nice and concise), but here's what you need to know: Everybody wants to get married, and those who don't want to get married are trying to set other people up.

Whedon regulars are, of course, present-- There's Sean Maher from Firefly, Amy Acker and Fran Kranz from The Cabin in the Woods-- but the performance that stands out most is God (aka Nathan Fillion) as Dogberry, the chief of security in the household. He plays a pompous, arrogant fool better than any I've ever seen, and it's amazing. He expertly butchers every line he attempts to say, makes "an ass" of himself in front of everyone, and in his last scene on camera, steals the show by locking himself out of his car.

Unfortunately, Fillion doesn't have enough screen time, but Whedon made that expert decision in order to keep us from getting bored by the character. He's great in short bursts, and when he leaves, he leaves you wanting to see more. Nonetheless, Fillion most certainly is not the only outstanding performance in the film. Amy Acker is great as the witty and sarcastic lead, and Alexis Denisof is quite good as her equally-matched enemy-turned-husband.

The film's biggest accomplishment is that it takes Shakespeare's highfalutin dialogue and, within the first few minutes, makes it feel commonplace. Most modernized Shakespeare adaptations end up making the classical dialogue feel forced in a modern-day environment (Hamlet 2000, anyone?). But all the actors and actresses are able to say their lines as if it's just the way they normally talk. By the second scene in the film, I had forgotten that I was watching Shakespeare, and now was just interested in what all these people were going to do in Joss Whedon's house.

Final Score for Much Ado About Nothing: 9/10 stars. Better than The Avengers and approaching the genius that is Firefly, this is one of Whedon's best creations yet. I haven't used the word "masterpiece" yet this year, but this is as close as I've seen thus far. Easily the best film of the year (which is not saying much), but still worthy of its title as the best screen adaptation of Shakespeare this century.

FILM REVIEWS: The Hangover Part III

Sometimes, a sequel is so bad, it retroactively hurts one’s enjoyment of the original film. The Hangover Part III would qualify as one of those sequels. Interestingly enough, this movie isn’t even really a ‘comedy’ per se, as I don’t think it was actually made to elicit laughs. But the obvious question after that is “Why was it even made at all?” MONEY. You would think that Todd Phillips and friends would have at least tried to give people their money’s worth in this third installment in the formerly hilarious series. But instead, all he conjures up are a few tired jokes separated from each other by long, drawn-out sequences of bludgeoning stupidity and violence. The damage it wreaks on your brain is irreparable.

The Hangover Part III reunites Phil, Stu, Allen, and Doug in one last (hopefully) misadventure, peppered with crude humor, ridiculously tasteless scenes, and full-out insanity. Unfortunately, none of it works like it did in the first film. The original Hangover was famous for blending classic R-rated comedy with real heart and splendid performances. However, this seems to be a lost concept for both the first sequel and this one, as they delve into a mean-spirited and unfunny realm of bad humor and even worse plotting. What makes me mad is that this movie easily could have been a lot better, and could have concluded the Hangover trilogy in spectacular fashion. But no.

The usual formula is shaken up pretty well here, but that’s all I can really say that’s good about it. Part three begins when Allen (Zach Galifianakis) buys a giraffe and accidentally decapitates it on the highway when its head hits an overpass. Apparently, this is supposed to be funny, but you wouldn’t know it from watching the movie. Allen’s dad then dies of a heart attack when he confronts his idiot son. Phil, Stu, and Doug then stage an intervention for Allen to try and get him into rehab, or back on his meds, or SOMETHING to stop him from being such an incorrigible moron. This premise is pretty stupid, but I give Phillips credit for at least trying to steer the franchise away from its formula. Then again, all he really achieves is a Hangover movie without the hangover.

On their way to a rehab center, the wolf pack is run off the road by John Goodman (whose considerable talent is wasted here), who plays a crime lord in the Southwest. Apparently, Leslie Chow, the stereotypical Asian criminal mastermind from the first two movies, has stolen millions of dollars in gold from Goodman, and he wants the wolf pack to get it back. Goodman takes Doug hostage, which is lame, as Justin Bartha is once again taken out of the equation. One of these days, we should have a Hangover movie where Bartha actually gets to display his talent. But it’s not like they’re going to shake it up THAT much. So we’re left with a movie featuring Ed Helms, Bradley Cooper, and Galifianakis dicking around in Tijuana and Las Vegas.

It’s intermittently entertaining, but this movie pales in comparison to what it could have been. And throughout it, I couldn’t shake the feeling that it wasn’t even a comedy. It’s not like the jokes fell flat or something. It’s just that there WERE no jokes. Which is surprising for a movie billed as a ‘comedy.’ It’s really a fascinating turn of events, and I can’t rightly say what the filmmakers were trying to do here (besides the obvious cash grab). It was just a weird action-crime movie that had a damn good premise... but for some reason was turned into a Hangover sequel. Which made absolutely no sense.

Not only is this movie bad, it’s unusually dark for a Hangover film, let alone a comedy in general. It has an overly serious tone, a lot of questionable material, and far too many violent scenes to be really called a ‘comedy.’ I think it was trying to be clever in a Kiss Kiss Bang Bang kind of way, and it easily could have been, but it just didn’t have enough jokes in it to really be an actual comedy. Even Galifianakis’s character, who used to be a lovable goofball but still a nice guy, morphs into a rude and obnoxious person. It’s unsettling and disappointing.

Final Score for The Hangover Part III: 2/10 stars. I’m happy to see that they changed the formula up a bit, but that’s just about the only ounce of redeeming value in this pointless, derivative, and unexpectedly cruel comedy. All of the actors seem bored and worn-out with what they’re doing, especially Bartha, who barely has a speaking role and seems to just be going through the motions, disappointed that he yet again doesn’t get to play a big part. This is a bland and exhausting movie that will please only die-hard Hangover fans. But if you are uninitiated with the franchise, or the first failed to impress you, stay away from this.

TV REVIEWS: Firefly

I’ve been getting a lot of requests to do TV show reviews, and I’ve finally given in-- besides, what better way to kick off Tut’s Tutillating Television Reviews than my absolute favorite show, Firefly? A quick backstory: I actually watched Serenity, the film adaptation of this great show, before I was able to see any of the episodes. But even though the story kind of lost me, I was incredibly intrigued by the characters and the feel of the movie. It made me want to watch more. So I queued up an episode of Joss “The Boss” Whedon’s cult hit on Netflix, and... I found God. In the form of Malcom Reynolds, sure, but I found God. If you know me, you know I can find flaws in anything (literally-- ANYTHING). I can nitpick even my favorite movies. But I can truthfully say this right here and now: Even my favorite movie, Raiders of the Lost Ark, technically scores a 9.957/10 on the Anus-O-Meter. No movie has ever gotten past that. But Firefly is the full ten. It is, in a word, perfect.

Firefly is the story of Malcom Reynolds (Nathan Fillion), the captain of the Firefly-class transport ship Serenity. Mal was a so-called ‘browncoat’ back in an intergalactic war for independence, which he lost. After the war, he and his old war cohort Zoe (Gina Torres) bought Serenity in order to “Never have to be under the heel of nobody ever again.” Also along for the ride are Wash, the pilot and Zoe’s husband, Jayne, a freelance mercenary who is both crude and lovable, and Kaylee, the engineer, a hippie-dippy overalls-wearing girl who is in tune with machines. At the beginning of the show, Serenity picks up a doctor, a preacher, and already has a certified prostitute staying on board.

This show is a religion. I will just say that now so there will be no confusion. Watching an episode of Firefly every week is my version of going to church. Literally everything works in this show. Firstly: The concept. Firefly may be sci-fi, but it’s really a western. The free spirit of the series is the same kind of goosebump-inducing John Wayne kind of feel you’d expect from a western IN SPACE. It works this concept into everything, and it weaves this mind-blowingly realistic idea remarkably well. Sure, there are spaceships-- but there are also horses, powder weapons, and distinctly western phrases. “Gorram mudders!”

Which brings me to the dialogue. HOLY SHIT, is it ever inspired. Every second of every episode clinks along perfectly, with no awkward or tongue-in-cheek moments. It’s easily the most quotable television series of all time, giving the world such memorable lines as “Curse your sudden yet inevitable betrayal!” and “Not as deceivin’ as a low-down... dirty... deceiver.” I get chills when I hear dialogue as good as this. It is incredibly realistic and has a lot of range-- the show can go from being a drama to a comedy in 30 seconds flat.

All of the characters are written well, and it’s their personality quirks and backstories that make the show what it is. Usually a show will have one character who you say “Yeah, that guy... not so much.” Firefly does not have that guy. Every character is likable, funny, and relatable in some way. They are clearly defined, and you know exactly what they want out of life. But Malcom Reynolds... Malcom motherfucking Reynolds... wow. Rarely does a TV character have the depth that Nathan Fillion gives his tortured captain. Although the character is clearly written to be bitter about his loss in the war, Fillion gives him a Han Solo-y likability that is just absolutely intangible, but is a thrill ride to watch. He pretends that all he wants is to make money and go on his way, but you know that inside, he’s a far deeper man than that. This performance is a fucking tour de force, but it doesn’t completely outperform the rest of the cast, who are also incredible. Altogether, this is the best ensemble cast of all time, playing fantastic characters with the best dialogue ever written, directed by the God of the Nerds, with a killer premise. You see now why I have 100% lost my shit over this show.

The special effects are campy, but THAT’S THE POINT. Unfortunately, this is probably what killed the show. Even with its cartoony effects (which work incredibly well), it had a massive budget. And this is why the FUCKING GOD DAMN MOTHERFUCKING SHIT... FUCK... AAAAAAAAARGH... FOX Network cancelled it. Those words bring tears to my eyes. This show is such a good-hearted, lovable, fantastic experience, and FOX killed it. Why must this company destroy ALL that is good in the world? FUCK! Firefly, in the most idiotic decision of all time, was cancelled after only fourteen episodes. Not only that, but FOX aired them out of of order, gave the show a horrible time slot, and didn’t allow it to pick up any momentum before lowering the boom.

How much do I love this show? Let’s get this straight: If I had a time machine and could go back to reverse only ONE event in human history, I wouldn’t think about it for a second. Fuck killing Hitler, or Saddam Hussein, or Stalin-- I would travel to 2001 and tell FOX not to cancel Firefly. That is how good this shit is. Final Score for my religion: 100/10 stars. This show is a religious experience for anyone who calls themselves a nerd. It is spectacular. There are dozens of high points in the series, but my head could explode trying to pinpoint a low moment. It is a rollercoaster ride that never stops, or SHOULD never have stopped... fuck it. I will say this in closing: Even though I hate sappy shit, there are some of these moments in Firefly. And somehow, it actually got me to feel something. Elation? Joy? Those words do not cover it. This show touched my very fucking soul. Yes, I have a soul (dark as it may be). Firefly is the most absolutely amazing thing you will ever see. Prefuckingpare yourself.